1) Why do you think Latin America “failed” or rather which of the causes had the most downturn effects leading to their “Supplementary Existence” status? Could these have been avoided with a more American approach?
2) On page 145 (2nd paragraph) Fernando-Armesto describes a different outcome of the civil war. Something I’m sure we’ve all considered at one point or another, but never described quite so fittingly. Do you think Brooklyn College would have any place in this southern north? Or any CUNY/SUNY? Who would we be in relation to a different American order? As NYers this is simply unfathomable, but really, where?
3) The rest of the world is going haywire over democratic desires; what can they learn from our first state of democracy? From Europe? The French? Latin America? Starting out with anarchy & tyranny, aren’t they doing the democratic thing backwards?
4) And finally (& I know this is extra, but I’m just wondering) where the heck did Canada go? Besides a single sentence blurb on 121-122 they have disappeared in the evolution of The Independence Era & The New Dependency. What’s up with that?
Q2) Quote/Description:
ReplyDelete"Had the outcome of the war been different, or had the North not ventured to reconquer the South, there would presumably be a big "Anglo" state in North America to this day with a dependent system resembling the classic pattern: a relatively small, rich elite of consumers wasting resources on fancy imports, with little incentive to diversify or industrialize; a racially differentiated class of poor,, condemned to poverty by the surplus of labor; a highly vulnerable and unstable pattern of exports based on a few key crops; and reliance on foreign merchants and shippers with consequently prolific leaching of the export-trade profits".
1) I think that the independence wars in Latin America contributed significantly to its downfall. Unlike the war in the United States - which was "shortened by foreign help and lasted less than eight years" (122)- the Spanish American wars were protracted and devastating. While the economy of the United States flourished, Latin American economy was fragmented by its wars. Even more notably, there didn't seem to be a sense of unity (pgs. 123-124): Spanish America was ostensibly "too big" and "too rich" to be reunited, nor was much of an effort made to restore it. While I don't think these problems could have been completely avoided, a more "American" approach (such as "democratization and industrialization") may have helped to strengthen and stabilize the failing nations.
ReplyDelete4) Canada remained loyal to the Crown while the rest of the Americas had independence movements going on. So in this sense Canada is pretty much the odd one out, off in its own corner. (I was interested in this snippet in particular: "In its origins the United States resembled some of the "Latin" states more than it resembled Canada" - 120).
Q1) I don't think Latin America "failed" I think they didn't do as well. The United States was growing in the world and the economy was starting to boom. I think the United States used more of their resources and used the native people for labor.
ReplyDeleteQ3) Before the United States became a country of power, we were also suppressed by the British. We fought to get our independence just as many other nations have in the past and even in the present. I don't believe it was going backwards, because I think many have overcome certain obstacles to become democratic.
Latin America didn't become economically successful as the US. But I wouldn't say they failed. The US became more successful politically and economically because of several reasons. One reason why the US has become economically more successful is because of slave based productivity and the industrial revolution. Latin America had many civil wars which furthered their decline economically and politcally. Even though the US had it's civil problems, the US maintained it's political stability and non-violent changes of government. While the US experienced the industrial revolution, Latin America depended on a few primary products. Also international investment in the US played a part in the economic boom of the US.
ReplyDelete2) I don't think there would really be a place for CUNY/SUNY's in this '"Anglo" state in North America' because it seems like the middle class would be missing, or would make up a small percentage of the population. The rich are just buying fancy imports while the rest of the "poor" people are 'condemned to poverty because of a surplus of labor.' There would probably be a few private universities for the elite to attend, and the others would be stuck in labor. But then again, I'm sure the lower class would revolt and somehow create a better class division, make a larger middle class, and create colleges for the benefit of the non-elite.
ReplyDelete2) I do not think there would be a place for Brooklyn College in this alternate history for several reasons. I found that most of my reasons were based on economics. A Liberal Arts College would have no place, meaning no economic benefit, in a Country wholly focused on Agriculture, such as this New United States. Also a Country focused on Agriculture "with little incentive to diversify or industrialize (145)" would quickly fall prey to economic stagnation and eventual failure. I do not see how a College such as Brooklyn College could sprout from and be nurtured by this environment. As to who we would be in relation to this new world order, I think we would be the among those "condemned to poverty(145)." On the bright side, in this alternate history I picture us as the revolutionaries.
ReplyDeleteAccording to Armesto, some of the causes which led Latin America to “fail”, leading to their “supplementary existence”, was due to the fact that independence movements in Latin America, were fueled by technology insufficiency, or as Armesto puts it, they were “less constrained by the enlightened, professional etiquette of the eighteenth-century battlefield” (p 122). These colonies, were suffering due to wars, hurting their economies which were at a standstill, due to the “long and total cessations of foreign trade”(p122). However, the Untied states, or the “northern union”, as Armesto refers to the country as was able to avoid these kind of disabilities, due to the fact they had had good seaboard communications, allowing them to make a “relatively compact country”. Latin America on the other hand, due to the Napoleonic invasions, which caused alienation to the hemisphere, were experiencing new tensions, between “colonial and metropolitan elites”(p122). Ultimately, these effects proved to be long lasting, because when countries such as Brazil gained independence, they were highly fragile, and causing Spanish America, to be a “humpty-dumpty, irremediably smashed by its fall” (p 123). So What is my point? Well, I believe, that Latin America “failed” due geographical isolation, and also because of the crippling effects of struggle for Independence movements, which made those that finally became independent, to weak to stand tall against the United States.
ReplyDeleteTherefore, I don't think they could have been avoided with more of an American approach, because American had become too powerful, and had the the protection from the French and Spain, gaining new trading partners, and multiplying their shipping (p123).
Q2) I also agree with several peoples comments about not having a place for Brooklyn College. Since there would only be rich or poor, the majority of people would probably be poor, therefore would be the laborors to the rich and they might not even allow for the poor to attend school. The rich may look at poor people attending school as fearful because that would mean they poor can actually think for themselves and once they go to school they'd want freedom of speech, etc etc. Cuny/Suny schools would not be able to exist in this type of world unless the only people permitted to go were the rich but I'm sure they'd have "better" colleges then cuny/suny.
ReplyDelete